You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form. Your views on Past & Future of Transboundary Aquifers: Research, Management, and Policy Directions In order to facilitate the discussion at a forthcoming workshop, we would be grateful to have your views on the points below. Please reply by 15th July 2019. Name Affiliation If you are basing your replies on a specific Transboundary Aquifer (TBA)/TBAs, or country / countries - please indicate them here A - Regarding the recognition of the topic of TBAs in the global ‘water agenda’ TBAs are very well recognised Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) TBAs are recognised by some ‘international water specialists’ – but disregarded at the national level Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) B - Regarding the progress achieved on understanding the ‘the physical and social science’ for evaluation of transboundary aquifers Since 2000 (the launch of ISARM) – good progress has been made Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) There is not much difference in evaluating national vs transboundary aquifers Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) C - On the maturation and adoption of legal frameworks relating to TBAs by Member States of the UN The UN International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifer have made an important impact Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) The UN 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses adequately covers TBA’s. Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) The UN ECE 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes with Model Rules for TBAs is better suited for TBAs than either of the above Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) D - Have TBA Agreements negotiated between ‘aquifer system states’ taken full account of the relevant hydrogeology / socio economics There is significant recognition of these factors Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) These factors have limited relevance to the preparation of Agreements Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) E - Considering the ‘global water agenda’ up to 2030, what specific efforts must national institutions make, so that their shared transboundary aquifer resources can be managed sustainably? No specific effort is required – as they are included in ‘basin agreements’ Yes No Comment (if you wish to expand) Specific efforts are required, for the following reasons: a. Transboundary aquifer management is very ‘complicated’ Agree Do Not Agree Comment (if you wish to expand) b. Institutions charged with groundwater regulation have insufficient capacity (human resources / technical resources, etc.) Agree Do Not Agree Comment (if you wish to expand) c. Institutions operate in silos – specifically in relation to foreign policy, which determines the scale inter country collaboration over TBA’s Agree Do Not Agree Comment (if you wish to expand) d. Other reasons (please explain) F - With regard to the future role of the IAH Commission on Transboundary Aquifers (2020 to 2030), please give your views on the following: a. Purpose/role of the Commission b. How the Commission can better serve IAH and non-IAH TBAs audience c. What should be on the Commission’s agenda (e.g., priorities, tasks, schedule, etc.) d. What should be the Commission’s targeted work product Email Leave this field blank